×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Saga of Katie.com

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the make-it-a-porn-site dept.

The Internet 1246

digitalcaffeine writes "The gist of the story is that Katie Tarbox became a victim of an online sexual predator when she was 13. She wrote a book about it in 2000 and Penguin Putnam made the title of the book 'Katie.Com', which unfortunately was a domain name owned by Katie Jones since 1996. Now Tarbox's lawyer is demanding that Jones turn over the domain name. Penguin refuses to apologize, saying that it would be a violation of their free speech to re-title the book and that Jones never trademarked katie.com, so they can do what they want with the words."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

1246 comments

Wow (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9887885)

If it weren't so stupid, it would be funny. These people need a severe beating with a clue stick.

Katie.com (5, Informative)

erick99 (743982) | more than 9 years ago | (#9888061)

From her website;

To answer some questions that I've received today, firstly as far as I know the rather aggressive lawyer who contacted me yesterday is not part of Penguin Puttnam but is working with Katie Tarbox on future projects and trying to gain control of my domain name for these projects. She informed me that things would 'only get worse' for me from here if I didn't do something about it - i.e. give it to them.

Finally, a point about this domain name. When this book launched I had no choice but to take down the content I previously had published on the front page because of the traffic coming to the site and having no choice but to remove it if I didn't want my professional and personal reputation damaged by it. I still use it, although I don't link from the front page of course, and one day I sincerely hope I'll be able to move my content back up where it belongs.

Cheers,

Erick

First Post! Woohoo! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9887888)

I got it!

Re:First Post! Woohoo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9887950)

Failed! You fucker.

Newsflash! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9887892)

Website gang-raped by thousands of Slashdotters. Film at 11...

Frizzy Pizzy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9887895)

The girls R.A. on the floor above me freshman year of college was named Katie. Boy I wanted to hit that every so badly!

Makes no sense (5, Insightful)

xbrownx (459399) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887900)

It's not also a violation of the domain owner's free speech rights to have to "re-title" her domain?

There's something ironic about her lawyers fighting to have the Katie.com domain so that she can promote her book about Internet predators.

So they name the book (5, Interesting)

klmth (451037) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887903)

without ever googling for the domain name they used? Unbelievably clueless.

Re:So they name the book (5, Interesting)

mopslik (688435) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887918)

without ever googling for the domain name they used?

Or typing it into the address bar, for that matter. Why the need to invoke Google?

Why make it harder? (0, Redundant)

gosand (234100) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887937)

without ever googling for the domain name they used? Unbelievably clueless.

Gee, or do you suppose they could have just gone to the website www.katie.com. Why on earth would they need to google it? Or were you just trying to use a cool term?

Re:So they name the book (4, Insightful)

Neophytus (642863) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887940)

Oh, but they did. Had you RTFA then you would have realised then the original title for the book was to be girl.com, changed because the content of girl.com was at the time of the decision pornographic [archive.org].

Re:So they name the book (1)

duffbeer703 (177751) | more than 9 years ago | (#9888016)

Which makes Penguin's decision even more retarded.... they had to change the title of the book because the original title is a porn site.

Yet they rename it to a name that is owned by someone else??? How idiotic!

Re:So they name the book (1, Funny)

xbrownx (459399) | more than 9 years ago | (#9888038)

Wow, both girl.com and katie.com are truly horrible titles. Who thinks of this crap?

Re:So they name the book (4, Funny)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#9888065)

See, what Penguin should have done is buy out Girl Skateboards [girlskateboards.com], use that against girl.com (who, I'm guessing, didn't bother with a trademark either) and then everyone would be a winner! Err, except the porn guys.

Honestly, this whole thing sounds like this is a story the editors misqueued back in 1998. What does Penguin think -- that they're going to make a fortune off banner ads and the katie.com IPO?

Re:So they name the book (5, Insightful)

stromthurman (588355) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887964)

Actually, they almost certainly did know the domain was taken. Originally, the book was to be titled "girl.com", but according to the Katie Jones' open letter, girl.com at the time was a hardcore porn site. Seems to be a search page of some sort now. Anyway, I would not be surprised to find out that this was a deliberate move by the company. They knew katie.com was taken by someone else, but it was a private individual who had not registered any trademark on the domain name, and it's apparently a more desireable name than katiet.com (Katie Tarbox's actual website), so they probably figured they could muscle it out of her.

Re:So they name the book (0, Redundant)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887970)

fuck googling for it, why the heck fsck dang shat didnt they just type the bloody address in?

Archive.org [archive.org] has the site as active from 1998.

Re:So they name the book (-1, Redundant)

SpooForBrains (771537) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887976)

Actually, it appears they were aware of the domain name issue, as the book was originally to be titled "girl.com" and was renamed, one assumes because "girl.com" is a sex site.

So they were most likely aware, but went ahead and did it anyway - probably assuming a lawyer could sort out the problem later with minimal hassle.

Re:So they name the book (4, Interesting)

LabRat007 (765435) | more than 9 years ago | (#9888059)

No, the article clearly states they knew "katie,com" was owned by another women and they went ahead with it anyway. Which, IMHO makes it inexcusable. We don't post real phone numbers in media anymore why shouldn't this rule also apply to other contact information such as domain names and email addresses?

A new shock site? (5, Funny)

jrockway (229604) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887904)

Why doesn't the real (slim?) Katie make katie.com a convienient mirror of, say, goatse. Then the people will complain to Penguin and they'll be forced to do something. Like change the title. It's her right to decide the content of her page, right? So I think she'd even be in the clear :-)

Of course ligit visitors might think Katie is a weirdo, but hey. It's better than having Katie.tv_fm_info_dumbtld :)

Re:A new shock site? (5, Funny)

Ianoo (711633) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887919)

Best. Idea. Ever.

Re:A new shock site? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9887947)

YANCBG!

(You are _not_ Comic Book Guy!)

Now go stand in the cliche corner!

Re:A new shock site? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9887987)

Yeah, but some dipshit moderator has given me a +1 Insightful, so I ain't complaining!

Re:A new shock site? (5, Informative)

SpooForBrains (771537) | more than 9 years ago | (#9888091)

Why doesn't the real (slim?) Katie make katie.com a convienient mirror of, say, goatse.


because her best chance of winning this in court (bearing in mind that there has only been one previous legal precedent and the legality is still a little muddy) is to prove that she is not keeping ownership of the domain to "cash in on" or deliberately adversely affect the book or the publishers' reputation.

and in other news.... (-1, Flamebait)

gowen (141411) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887905)

Random, uninteresting Americans engage in pointless, expensive litigation. Film at 11.

Re:and in other news.... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9888011)

RTFA. Penguin is a multinational corporation and Katie Jones is from the UK.

Re:and in other news.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9888028)

If you had RTFA, you'd know Katie Jones is from the UK. Care to restate?

Re:and in other news.... (5, Insightful)

Entrope (68843) | more than 9 years ago | (#9888087)

You have a rather broad definition of "random, uninteresting American." If you had bothered to do even a modicum of research, you would find that Katie Jones (owner of katie.com) lives in London, and Pearson Group (which seems to own the Penguin Putnam group) is based in London.

You clearly dislike it when Americans assume everything is about them, but is it fair to complain when you also assume everything is about Americans?

I hate the name Katie (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9887907)

I just do.

And using .com to spice up something is worse.

Katie.com (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9887910)

Does it have any nekkid pictures?

What are they smoking? (4, Interesting)

rice_web (604109) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887921)

I thought trademark was a right guaranteed with or without going through the trademark process. After her first "sale" (visit from an outsider), she would have held a trademark on her site.

Re:What are they smoking? (3, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887934)

That all ended with money backed litigation that basically forces someone to hand domains over before they run out of their own money.

Re:What are they smoking? (4, Informative)

PhuCknuT (1703) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887945)

You're thinking of copyright. Trademarks need to be registered.

And then there's... (4, Interesting)

EFGearman (245715) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887922)

the fact that the sex.com ruling made web names property. I would think that with that precedent, and judges love those, that the owner of the site can not be forced to turn it over. She was there first.

Re:And then there's... (5, Interesting)

abb3w (696381) | more than 9 years ago | (#9888051)

So, can the current owner of Katie.com sue Putnam for the damages done to her (EG, increased bandwidth costs, having to redesign her site around an irrelevant topic, etc.) as a result of their choice of title?

Almost too weird to be true (5, Insightful)

erick99 (743982) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887923)

Why do I feel like something might be missing from this story? We have the makings of a tv movie here. A girl is victimized, horribly, as a result of her online activities. A book is made, a lucrative speaking engagement tour is arranged, and the victim makes a lot of money. That in itself is not necessarily bad (though it can be rather odd). However, with all of this money seemingly floating about, Katie T. and Penguin could have done the most gracious thing and made a generous offer to Katie J. for the domain name katie.com. Instead, they suggest that the domain name should be given to them as a "donation." I generally donate money to causes that are essentially "poor." I don't see any poor people on Kate T.'s side of the fence. So, this looks really, really greedy on the part of Katie T. and Penguin. As a matter of fact, it looks so overwhelmingly crass and greedy that it seems almost unreal. The Register article seemed informative but can this really be all there is to this? Is Penguin really so dumb as to steamroller over someone's domain name and not offer even a token sum to fix it? I wonder. If Katie T. and Penguin really are this mean-spirited and greedy then I do hope that someone steps forward and helps Katie J. fund a legal challenge.

Cheers,

Erick

Re:Almost too weird to be true (1)

solarmist (313127) | more than 9 years ago | (#9888006)

Well, it seems that even if they had it wouldn't've worked because she's said she's turned down some rather generous offers to buy her domain name already.

Re:Almost too weird to be true (5, Informative)

imadork (226897) | more than 9 years ago | (#9888095)

The Register article seemed informative but can this really be all there is to this? Is Penguin really so dumb as to steamroller over someone's domain name and not offer even a token sum to fix it? I wonder. If Katie T. and Penguin really are this mean-spirited and greedy then I do hope that someone steps forward and helps Katie J. fund a legal challenge.

No, you pretty much have it right. This story has been around for a while and very little has changed. You can google for older stories if you like.

Katie J. is in a no-win situation. If she offers to sell the domain or sue for damages, she'll be accused of trying to profit off of Penguin's book, and would likely lose the domain in a trademark dispute to WIPO.

But Penguin's use of katie.com is directly causing her harm, because she effectively can't use it for its intended purpose because of all the traffic it is getting. And even if she got Penguin to change future editions, the damage is already done -- katie.com is effectively useless for anything that is not associated with the book. The only way to remedy this is to sue for damaged caused by Penguin's behavior -- which, as we already discussed, she can't really do.

This is why I'm not a lawyer. It seems like they're all schmucks.

Re:Almost too weird to be true (2, Informative)

interiot (50685) | more than 9 years ago | (#9888099)

Now that Penguin has released the book, katie.com's owner could potentially ask for an arbitrarily high selling price, since the book's title can't be changed anymore, so Penguin may be hesitant to negotiate at this point. The proper thing to do would have been for Penguin to offer a smaller price BEFORE the book's cover was finalized.

Complain (in ink on paper) to Penguin (5, Insightful)

ericlj (81729) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887926)

I sent a letter to Penguin yesterday letting them know that I disapprove of their actions in this matter.

It's conceivable, but unlikely, that if enough people write or call they will change their tactics.

I assume that dealing with a large publisher is like dealing with government; I expect that they ignore email complaints but are more likely to respond to letters or phone calls.

Katiet.com is the real site for the book (4, Informative)

doublem (118724) | more than 9 years ago | (#9888039)

Please send your complaints to Katiet.com [katiet.com], which is the web site of the Penguin book that is causing all this fuss.

If the author gets flooded with mail about her predatory behavior, something might happen.

The autor's address is katie@katiet.com [mailto]

Penguin couldn't care less.

Re:Complain (in ink on paper) to Penguin and more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9888068)

I would suggest a boycott of Penguin books (including all subsidiaries) for its lack of tact in this matter.

They are behaving like M$, the world-dominating monopoly that we all know to be "compassionate" corporate citizens of the world.

Law $uit (2, Insightful)

rakjr (18074) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887927)

While a person's name may not be unique, katie.com is a unique identification. Penguin has (by ignorance) directly acted against the interests of the person who had katie.com. Freedom of speach does not mean there are not consequences for what you say. A lack of copy right does not change the uniqueness of the identification. This has law $uit writen in the biggest letters I have ever seen.

Re:Law $uit (1)

bmiller949 (681252) | more than 9 years ago | (#9888077)

This is the type of stuff I tried to avoid almost 7 years ago, when I bought my domain. I figured between Bill Miller's Bar-B-Que in Texas and Bill Miller, the Native American Folk singer, someone would sue my ass to get the domain name billmiller.com from me. The domain was available at the time but on my poor tech support salary, I couldn't afford legal nightmares like this. I opted for a variation of my name, instead.

Publishers (0, Redundant)

freaksta (524994) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887933)

Well it looks like someone in the publishing department should have done their homework before approving the title.

And?? (-1, Redundant)

alnya (513364) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887935)

Ok, for all that this is clearly asinine, I still fail to see the problem.
It's obviously not cyber-squatting, and just penguin flexing their muscles a little bit.
Obviously I didn`t RTFA, but have they made a cash offer for the domain or are they just being threatening?
Probably an example of a heavy-handed marketing department looking for synergy or something...

Upcoming books galore (5, Funny)

ergonal (609484) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887936)

Maybe Penguin should have thought about that before releasing the book? Dumbasses. On the plus side, I've decided to becoming a budding author. My debut book is scheduled to be released on April 1 2005, and its name will be "cia.gov".

You're missing the boat (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9887984)

My book Google.com is going to be a bestseller!

Re:Upcoming books galore (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9888102)

nice idea, but the government can only be sued when they choose to allow it. You would be much better off writing, say the epic novel Microsoft.com

Stupid... (0, Redundant)

xIcemanx (741672) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887949)

Why on earth didn't they look it up first?

And since it was clearly meant to be a generic name for the book title, why are they demanding rights to the website? I mean, no one's going to go to "katie.com", they understand that it's simply a symbolic book title.

Re:Stupid... (4, Insightful)

mopslik (688435) | more than 9 years ago | (#9888081)

no one's going to go to "katie.com"

And yet there's a reason [straightdope.com] why every phone number in the movies has to be prefixed with 555.

Or they could assume that the associated website would contain more information about the book, author, etc.

Re:Stupid... (2, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 9 years ago | (#9888086)

I mean, no one's going to go to "katie.com", they understand that it's simply a symbolic book title.

You obviously haven't taken notice of the average intelligence quotient of people here in the US, have you?

Imagine if... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9887954)

I wrote a book and called it
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.

Washington DC 20500
Then tried to claim it as my property!

Dear OSDN, (4, Funny)

Ianoo (711633) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887955)

I notice that you currently own the name "slashdot.org". Our research shows you never trademarked this name. Last week, I applied for a trademark on the terms "slashdot", "slashdot.org" and "slashdot.com" and these have been granted. Therefore I require you to hand over your domain immediately, or face legal proceedings.


Yours Sincerely,
I.P. Freely

Dear Ianoo, (5, Funny)

IPFreely (47576) | more than 9 years ago | (#9888093)

I notice that you currently use the name "I.P. Freely". Our research shows you never registered this name. Several years ago, I applied for a registration on the terms "I.P. Freely", "IPFreely" and "IP Freely" and these have been granted. Therefore I require you to hand over your title immediately, or face legal proceedings.

Yours Sincerely,
IPFreely [slashdot.org]

Three step buisiness plan. (5, Funny)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887960)

I have a brand new buisiness idea:

1. Write a book called Amazon.com about ancient warrior women that are stalked online.
2. Take control of said domain name then sell it back.
3. Profit

Unlike the plans of the underpants gnomes and SCO, this one may actually be crazy enough to work.

The real question is... (3, Funny)

Oxy the moron (770724) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887962)

... how is Darl McBride involved? I mean come on, doesn't he *really* own the trademark to penguins?

No due diligence (4, Insightful)

charnov (183495) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887965)

Katie Jones can assert her copyright of the works and the name at any time. Just because someone else doesn't do their due diligence and wraps their business up in a name does not mean the original owner has to cough it up. A little advice for Katie Tarbox's lawyer(s): even IF you get the name awarded, it will be tied up in court for a long time, probably longer than the value you have attached to it will last if not immediately established, and secondly, any decent judge will force you to pay through the nose to compensate the original owner. Good luck. You should make her a seven figure offer if it is so important to your business model.

What the? Is it Katie Jones problem? (2, Informative)

mtrupe (156137) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887966)

This could set a frightening precedent.

Anyone know why the lawyers are going after Katie Jones rather than the register or something? All Katie Jones did was send someone money to register a domain name. The idiotic publisher fogot to check and see if it was taken before naming the book? Huh?

Katie Jones hasn't broken any laws, so I would guess that the lawyers are just trying to bully her. All this publicity will certainly take the wind out of the corrupt sails.

My post doesn't make sense because this story makes no sense. This is just crazy!

The publisher DID know (1)

doublem (118724) | more than 9 years ago | (#9888097)

As the article states, the publisher knew someone else owned katie.com

The arrogant bastards just didn't care.

Re:What the? Is it Katie Jones problem? (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 9 years ago | (#9888100)

The idiotic publisher fogot to check and see if it was taken before naming the book?

According to the article, the publisher knew before the book was named that there was a katie.com domain name, and that it did not belong to the author of the book.

Apparently, katiet.com (the author's domain name) wouldn't have had the same impact as katie.com. Or something.

Make sure Katie's book sinks like a stone (1, Insightful)

puzzled (12525) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887967)


Katie might have a good story to tell but we need to make sure her book sinks like a stone. Is there a legal defense fund? How do we contribute?

Not demanded, asked (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9887969)

It seems that the Katie.com people don't like the web traffic and messages from users who assume Katie.com is the abused Katie. Apparently the lawyer suggested if this was a problem for Katie.com, they could donate the domain to penguin. This is not a hijacking. And not the black-and-white victimization the write-up implies.

Re:Not demanded, asked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9888023)

Uh huh. "Hi! We're sending thousands of visitors to your site for a reason unrelated to your site. If you're unhappy with this, feel free to donate the name." Change "thousands of visitors" to "tons of packets" and it becomes a denial of service/extortion.

Hello, Katie Tarbox? (3, Insightful)

abkaiser (744418) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887985)

Katie Jones is very open and informative about this situation on the katie.com website. Interesting that Katie Tarbox herself doesn't have any response to this problem. (Unless her lawyer is keeping her quiet.)

Seems to me like the katie.com publisher and probably Tarbox screwed up in not checking domain registration before printing. They've gotta suck up their own mistake, and not hassle Jones about donating the name back.

Re:Hello, Katie Tarbox? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9888079)

Donating back? Katie Jones had the name for 4 years before the book even existed.

Chances are.... (1, Funny)

Bobman1235 (191138) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887995)

Chances are that we'll solve this whole dillema by reducing her server to a smoldering pile of rubble anyways....

Although it's holding up well so far...

Stupid (2, Interesting)

LordBodak (561365) | more than 9 years ago | (#9887998)

Penguin should shut up and leave Katie J alone.

But Katie J is also being stupid with her whole "I can't use my domain blah blah blah" crap. How can she not mention her baby on her page because people are coming there? The whole point to the web is that it is PUBLIC and people will come and go. So people are reading, now she has to take everything down? Stupid.

Re:Stupid (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9888080)

The vast majority of sites aren't well known to pedophiles and such. This one is.

Just goes to show... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9888002)

Stuff like this is exactly why women should not be allowed to use computers.

I know it's not "politically correct" or whatever to say that, but it's just too dangerous out there nowadays.

Pro Bono Lawyer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9888009)

What Katie needs is a good pro bono lawyer to go after Penguin for the suffering she's received. Tell the lawyer to "make a name for himself," and let slip the dogs of war.

Publicity would then ensue, which in this case would be highly negative for Penguin...and that's bad for sales. They'd shut up and snap to a salute with a cookie when their bottom line is threatened by a legit challenge.

In other words: stick it to the man!

Penguin's REAL strategy (5, Funny)

Alzheimers (467217) | more than 9 years ago | (#9888024)

1) Name book after existing, small time website
2) Create small copywrite-related controversy over said site
3) Get small site url posted on Slashdot.
4) Reduce small website to smouldering ruin
5) Offer to accept smouldering ruin as "donation."

Re:Penguin's REAL strategy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9888103)

...(6) profit!!

I'm writing a book too! (-1, Redundant)

goldspider (445116) | more than 9 years ago | (#9888029)

It's about some cowboys and some mining prospectors who are feudin' over some land, shoot a bunch of each other, and then they all get rich when they find gold. Everyone goes YAHOO, beacuse now they don't have to work or fight anymore. They eventually start a COMmunity together and prosper.

Once I publish my book, I'll be filing the necessary legal paperwork.

Clear cut case of harrassment (4, Interesting)

hattig (47930) | more than 9 years ago | (#9888032)

As a UK citizen, she should just go to the police with the threatening legal letters, and raise a charge of harrassment against Penguin Publishing. Point out that Penguin Publishing published her e-mail address everywhere in order to get a lot of people to harrass her. I'm sure that there is a lot of stuff she can do under UK law to stop this illegal baiting.

Penguin are clearly in the wrong here. I will just choose to not buy any book published by Penguin, it is the least I can do.

I hope that a lawyer sees this and decides to help this person out ... it would be nice to see a lawyer with a heart for a start ... I'm not holding my breath though.

Where will it end? (1)

QuantumJedi (795319) | more than 9 years ago | (#9888036)

As a result of her online activities a girl is victimised and writes a book about her experiences.

Feeling that her message hasn't been driven home enough she proves how horrible it is to be victimised (albeit in a very different way) by victimising another innocent girl due to her online activities....

Make it pay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9888054)

Apparently she is getting LOTS of hits. LOTS.

1) Sell advertising space on the web site.

2) Sell advertising space for penguin's competitiors.

3) Put a picture of someting unplesant (but not illegal) on the web site. That should annoy Penguin.

4) Sell the web address. Let Penguin try to stop here. Just make sure to sell it to someone else with lots of lawyers.

should libraries get involved (1)

BlastQuake (530459) | more than 9 years ago | (#9888056)

I know that libraries are a huge source of revenue for book publishers. I personally will try to recommend that the library I work for does not purchase any copies of the book or any future books by Tarbox. Perhaps a letter writing campaign from area libraries condemning the actions of the publisher and threatening to not buy books from the publisher because of its actions may be in order.

bwah? (1)

syrinx (106469) | more than 9 years ago | (#9888084)

This is a several-year-old book.. like the summary says, it came out in 2000. I read it a couple years ago, and I noticed that it said her actual website was "katiet.com", despite the title, which I thought was odd.

Now suddenly over 4 years later they're making an issue of it? Makes no sense, unless something is getting left out of the story. Lawyers suck.

That's it, then. (0)

imag0 (605684) | more than 9 years ago | (#9888089)

Let's Slashdot the piss outta her to show her our support!

wait, looks like you already got to it.

Ok, carry on, then.

Interesting (1)

jetkust (596906) | more than 9 years ago | (#9888094)

#1 Why is katie.com such a great name. I suggest the name katie911 would have made more sense.
#2 According to article, There was a tv show about a love relationship between a 40 year old and a 13 year old? wtf?
#3 Why doesn't Katie Couric sue over Katie.com since her name was stolen too. She's more popular than this girl.

I'll take the unpopular position (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9888098)

While I think that this is probably a hairy legal situation, one that can't possibly be hammered out here on Slashdot to a decent resolution, I do have to side with Katie T.

The ordeal she went through at the hands of a net stalker is not something that ought to be taken lightly, nor something that ought to be brushed aside as an aberration of the Internet. This kind of stalking happens much more often that most Internet aficianados are willing to admit.

I have many female friends (collective /. gasp) and not a single one of them has been able to own an ISP account name for more than three or four months before getting deluged by online predators. They are not doing anything more, typically, than simply owning a female-sounding ID. This is fairly indicative of the experience most women have with the Internet.

Add to this that websites designed to provide a "safe place" for stalked women are themselves frequently overrun with trolls.

Katie T. suffered a whole hell of a lot to come to a place where she could write her book. That the title of the book was the same as a website is mere lucky coincidence. Now, the 'owner' of the website who has done nothing more with the website than put up pictures of her 'art' and certainly done nothing in the way of promoting her website nor attempting to expand it any way, is trying to take away Katie T's right to the name.

It was Katie T. who put in the time and effort to put katie.com on the map. The least the 'owner' could do would be to offer the domain for sale to the rightful owner.

They KNOW there's no case... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9888101)

But look at all the publicity they're getting for the book.

It's just marketing through the US judicial system.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...